Most people seems to agree with the basic family rights we propose: that you are presumed FIT unless convicted by a jury in a criminal court of causing serious harm to your child with malintent -- but this one bothers most of us at first glance.
Perhaps it's because of the insecurity we feel in society, or the stories about kid's being forgotten all day in a hot car. Some people were concerned about how old the child was? 15 was okay, 1 was not okay, 4 was not okay -- but what about 8 or 9 or 13? Pretty arbitrary line at some point?
In 99.9% of these incidents, NOTHING happens -- except the kid stays asleep and a little less stress for the parent (usually a win-win). CLearly, there was no malintent to even attempt to harm the child.
I see parent's do silly stuff all the time that 'could' result in an accident/injury to their kids (letting little toddlers stand up in shopping carts is my personal favorite - they ought to be arrested!). But 'I' and 'we' are not the parents, and we accept that as family life.
Still concerned about the kid in the car? Then take the time to wait outside and keep watch. Try to have a little talk with parent when they come out of the store...... what, too busy? don't want to get involved? Guess you don't really care about that child either?
A very good point indeed and it is a very personal choice as to what age is ok. My wife and I have had this disagreement over what we can allow our daughter to do at what age. I was rasied in a household where as a child I had a lot( no make that A LOT) of freedom of movement and such whereas she had quite a bit less. Part of this was my family being very nonchalant about religion, where hers was strict Mormon upbringing. My feeling here is you know your child and are the best to decide what is in their best interest.